Fix the NFL playoffs

[Shane_O_Mac812]

I guarantee that in general, 12 wins is more impressive than 8 wins, and should be rewarded for it. I guarantee that far, FAR more times, that 8 win division 'winner' doesn't smell the playoffs at all in almost every other division, let alone get to host a playoff game.

I guarantee that there hasn't been a valid argument to counter that....certainly hasn't happened here....and until I see something credible, I see no point to continue.

your surrender is noted...you could have tucked your tail and ran off 13 pages ago and saved us all a lot of time and saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

 

[Fitbud]

How do you do that when they play different schedules? It’s fine as it is. It’s also good to know that life isn’t always fair.

It's all good. I will still enjoy the playoffs. It would just be a shame if a team like Dallas got into the playoff and someone with a better record didn't.

 

[Fitbud]

Can't do that. If you call for that then the 'just get rid of divisions' vultures will feast. I like divisions. It just irks me that they get a home playoff game no matter what. If a division winner is 8-8 or 7-9 they have no gripe about having to travel. You have the ultimate mediocre record of wins and losses. Be grateful your damn team is in the playoffs.

I'd be cool with that version of the playoffs. Being a division champion however would still be something. You just wouldn't make the playoff in my version of the playoffs if someone had a better record than you did.

 

[Fitbud]

He said your playoff idea is moronic.

Are you his personal translator?

 

[Fitbud]

Then @Fitbud will be asking for starting at the 50!

As long as it's equal for both sides I'm good with it.


I used to complain about the overtime rules until they changed them. I'm doing everyone a service.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

People really do seem to look at this the wrong way. Ok, well some special flowers anyway.

There are two brackets in each conference: the top 2 div winners go into the winners bracket, get a bye, and at least 1 home game with the one seed getting guaranteed home until they lose or the SB. These two get a lot of perks. They have the easiest road.

The other 4 are in the consolation bracket. They have to play an extra game and will all travel after week 1 to do a road game against the top bracket. Yes, the 3 and 4 won their div just like the 1 and 2, but they are already punished for their record by going to the lower bracket and having to face potentially better teams from the WC. Home field is the only perk they get at all.

This idea we have to treat division winners actually worse than WC teams that already didn't win their division is just not logical. That would have more bitching than what we have now.

Your arguement seems to revolve around the notion that what teams are played on a schedule as decided by divisions matters greatly in determining who deserves to make the playoffs.

The problem is that it rests on faulty logic. A 7-9 or 8-8 team winning their division actually demonstrates how awful much of their competition was. That's 6/10 games that 7-9 division winner got to play against losing teams with records of 6-9-1 or worse. I don't think Dallas or Philly would have been challenging the the 49'ers/Seahawks for the West or Packers/Vikings for the North if they switched divisions with the weakest teams in either said division this season (Cardinals or Lions). In fact, I think there's a very good chance that they'd be sitting in 4th place in those divisions in that scenario. Their current record would even place them as such.

That's all I'm saying. I'm tired of seeing the occasional team that would finish 3rd or even 4th in the better divisions making the playoffs AND getting higher seeding than cleary suprior teams that had to play much stronger opponents by virtue of being in a division with several good/great teams. I'm going to go ahead and say the 49'ers and Seahawks had it much harder this year than the Cowboys or Philly when they had to play each other twice and another 8 win/likely winning twice each just within their own division games. Put any of the 4 teams in the East in place of Dallas and they'd easily clown stomp that division this year.

 

[williewilliejuan]

It's all good. I will still enjoy the playoffs. It would just be a shame if a team like Dallas got into the playoff and someone with a better record didn't.

The only team that could realistically get impacted by that this season is the Rams, so I’m cool if that happens. Fuck them.

 

[Fitbud]

The only team that could realistically get impacted by that this season is the Rams, so I’m cool if that happens. Fuck them.

But the Rams are awesome. They were in the superbowl last year.

 

[WizardHawk]

Your arguement seems to revolve around the notion that what teams are played on a schedule as decided by divisions matters greatly in determining who deserves to make the playoffs.

The problem is that it rests on faulty logic. A 7-9 or 8-8 team winning their division actually demonstrates how awful much of their competition was. That's 6/10 games that 7-9 division winner got to play against losing teams with records of 6-9-1 or worse. I don't think Dallas or Philly would have been challenging the the 49'ers/Seahawks for the West or Packers/Vikings for the North if they switched divisions with the weakest teams in either said division this season (Cardinals or Lions). In fact, I think there's a very good chance that they'd be sitting in 4th place in those divisions in that scenario. Their current record would even place them as such.

That's all I'm saying. I'm tired of seeing the occasional team that would finish 3rd or even 4th in the better divisions making the playoffs AND getting higher seeding than cleary suprior teams that had to play much stronger opponents by virtue of being in a division with several good/great teams. I'm going to go ahead and say the 49'ers and Seahawks had it much harder this year than the Cowboys or Philly when they had to play each other twice and another 8 win/likely winning twice each just within their own division games. Put any of the 4 teams in the East in place of Dallas and they'd easily clown stomp that division this year.

Again, everyone who puts forth their plan stays entirely on the outlier examples and does not take into account the more common results. For example, it seems you want no 9 win team to host a 10+. So it's perfectly fine for a 10 win to host a 12 or 13. It feels arbitrary and likely to have more complaints about fairness than we have now.

This also applies to only looking at extreme examples with schedule comparison. The number of examples of teams with 3 or 4 more wins isn't that common. If we look just at your 9 win div not being good enough to host a 10 win WC, you really can't say the schedule didn't cost or add a game either way. As you pointed out a div that has to all play the NFC west isn't facing the same challenge as the NFC east. Those are real differences.

Any rule you want to put in impacts all teams every year. And why? Because the odd year with high WC and a really bad div happen? The league loves these outlier seasons by the way. Creates buzz and all publicity is good publicity.

The league had a chance to make changes when Seattle beat a really good saints team. They didn't. When asked about it they said this was how it was intended to work.

So again, we can all agree it's not ideal. We can also all agree it isn't going to change anytime soon. There just aren't alternatives out there that don't have their own down side, at least in the league's opinion.

Division rivalries and drama is really all they care about. They won't do anything that could diminish it.

 

[williewilliejuan]

But the Rams are awesome. They were in the superbowl last year.

They were gifted a trip to the Super Bowl and then proceeded to embarrass themselves. They’re a blight on the NFC. Their fans should all dress in sackcloth and offer sincere penance to all other teams and/or fanbases.

 

[Myles]

You win your division, you host a playoff game. Pretty easy rule that all teams know.
Leave it the way it is, it doesn't happen often. You don't fuck up a system because of an exception.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

Again, everyone who puts forth their plan stays entirely on the outlier examples and does not take into account the more common results. For example, it seems you want no 9 win team to host a 10+. So it's perfectly fine for a 10 win to host a 12 or 13. It feels arbitrary and likely to have more complaints about fairness than we have now.

This also applies to only looking at extreme examples with schedule comparison. The number of examples of teams with 3 or 4 more wins isn't that common. If we look just at your 9 win div not being good enough to host a 10 win WC, you really can't say the schedule didn't cost or add a game either way. As you pointed out a div that has to all play the NFC west isn't facing the same challenge as the NFC east. Those are real differences.

Any rule you want to put in impacts all teams every year. And why? Because the odd year with high WC and a really bad div happen? The league loves these outlier seasons by the way. Creates buzz and all publicity is good publicity.

The league had a chance to make changes when Seattle beat a really good saints team. They didn't. When asked about it they said this was how it was intended to work.

So again, we can all agree it's not ideal. We can also all agree it isn't going to change anytime soon. There just aren't alternatives out there that don't have their own down side, at least in the league's opinion.

Division rivalries and drama is really all they care about. They won't do anything that could diminish it.

Reading comprehension, not even once.

The final suggestion I had was that division winners are all guaranteed 1 of 6 playoff spots as is currently the case. However, if a division winner isn't at least a winning team at 9-7+, then they wouldn't automatically get home field over wildcard teams with significantly better records. I.e., 9-7 division winner is entitled to host upwards of a 15-1 wildcard team in the wildcard opener. However, if the division winner is 8-8 or worse, then the wildcards have to chance to get the home field over them IF they are AT LEAST 11-5+.

You think it's complete bullshit to promise 7/9-8/8 winners of dogchit divisions a playoff spot PLUS higher seeding than wildcards who fail to attain at least 11-5? Get the fuk outta here with your complete and utter lack of willingness to even remotely consider compromise on the matter. My suggestion specifically addresses the damn "outliers" you keep railing on about while leaving 95% of the system unchanged. Get fuked with your acting like I'm calling for a complete overhaul of the entire system, man.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

You win your division, you host a playoff game. Pretty easy rule that all teams know.
Leave it the way it is, it doesn't happen often. You don't fuck up a system because of an exception.

Meanwhile, you could easily modify the rules to specifically addrese the insane exceptions we're talking about without making massive changes to the system in general. Suggesting that 7-9 losing teams should have to give up home field to 11+ win wildcard teams is nothing like saying 10-6 division winners need to give it up to 11+ wildcard teams.

 

[WizardHawk]

Reading comprehension, not even once.

The final suggestion I had was that division winners are all guaranteed 1 of 6 playoff spots as is currently the case. However, if a division winner isn't at least a winning team at 9-7+, then they wouldn't automatically get home field over wildcard teams with significantly better records. I.e., 9-7 division winner is entitled to host upwards of a 15-1 wildcard team in the wildcard opener. However, if the division winner is 8-8 or worse, then the wildcards have to chance to get the home field over them IF they are AT LEAST 11-5+.

You think it's complete bullshit to promise 7/9-8/8 winners of dogchit divisions a playoff spot PLUS higher seeding than wildcards who fail to attain at least 11-5? Get the fuk outta here with your complete and utter lack of willingness to even remotely consider compromise on the matter. My suggestion specifically addresses the damn "outliers" you keep railing on about while leaving 95% of the system unchanged. Get fuked with your acting like I'm calling for a complete overhaul of the entire system, man.

You are one angry little dude. Ok, so fuck everyone that doesn't completely bow down and agree with you. You have the greatest idea in the history of football and everyone who doesn't see it is an idiot. Including the dumbasses running the league.

Sorry if we aren't willing to throw the thing out over the odd year of larger margin between the 4 and 5 seed. The 3 and 4 are already being punished by playing the first week and the WCs already lost their division. They don't deserve anything. They are given a consultation prize. Again you'd rather we do away with wildcards altogether than to properly punish them for losing their division. Most don't agree. Deal with it.

 

[Manster7588]

Meanwhile, you could easily modify the rules to specifically addrese the insane exceptions we're talking about without making massive changes to the system in general. Suggesting that 7-9 losing teams should have to give up home field to 11+ win wildcard teams is nothing like saying 10-6 division winners need to give it up to 11+ wildcard teams.

Do you realize you're crying about something that is so rare it's not worth the headache of making any what if changes.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

You are one angry little dude. Ok, so fuck everyone that doesn't completely bow down and agree with you. You have the greatest idea in the history of football and everyone who doesn't see it is an idiot. Including the dumbasses running the league.

Sorry if we aren't willing to throw the thing out over the odd year of larger margin between the 4 and 5 seed. The 3 and 4 are already being punished by playing the first week and the WCs already lost their division. They don't deserve anything. They are given a consultation prize. Again you'd rather we do away with wildcards altogether than to properly punish them for losing their division. Most don't agree. Deal with it.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

Do you realize you're crying about something that is so rare it's not worth the headache of making any what if changes.

It's happened twice in the past 9 years.............

 

[WizardHawk]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

If you are going to get all angry expect others to respond accordingly.

Just admit you don't care to take part in a discussion. You just want everyone to agree with you. Fuck everyone else. Just be honest about it at least.

 

[California Creme Puffs]

It's a slippery slope. It starts with giving wild card teams home field advantage. Next, they'll want a first round bye. Before you know it, guys with Nazi arm bands will be showing up at your door taking away all your guns. Is that what you want?

I think this might be your best post on this site.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

If you are going to get all angry expect others to respond accordingly.

Just admit you don't care to take part in a discussion. You just want everyone to agree with you. Fuck everyone else. Just be honest about it at least.

Again... talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I acknowledged that it'll never change and that makes my opinion irrelevant in reality. I acknowledged that you had your points, but that I had my reasons to disagree with them. I outlined a what I would consider a pretty reasonable compromise between the two schools of though, and you and 90% of the stubborn old farts on here berated me for it to no end.

We disagree on how it should work, but less so than you think. In any case, you'll continue to get your way, and I can live with it even though I disagree with it. Yet you're insinuating that I'm being some childish nut case about all this. My apologies for having a different opinion than yourself about football, damn.